Outpost Universe Forums
Projects & Development => GORF => Hall of Fame => Topic started by: croxis on August 01, 2006, 10:01:09 PM
-
Custom Unit Construction and upgrades
Related Ideas
Customizable Units (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2719) - TC300
Arguments for Support- Potential to allow more creative gameplay
- Very radical idea, new to the OP series
- Adds tactical elements
- Causes player to manage their time smarter
- Makes adding new weapons and chasses more easy as only the component will have to be designed.
Argument Against- At risk of becoming too complicated
- Very radical idea, new to the OP series
- May end up taking up too much of the players time
- The art team will have to work on what they allready built
Description
Assumption: I am assuming there will be an assortment of weapons and chasses, more than what was in OP2
In SMAC/X the player was able to design their own units with an assortment of chasse(sp), reactors, weapons, armor, and two unit augmentation slots. Obviously in a turn based game the player has time to design these, in a RTS things need to be much more simple so a player can do things quickly.
I propose three modules - the chasse, weapon slot, and augmentation slot, although this obviously doesn't have to be set in stone. Same with my examples that follows, its just for the gist.
Chasse:
These are the lynx, panthers, etc we all know and love. Possible stats for them are max speed, acceleration, reactor/engine horse power, turning rate, mass, base ore cost, construction time, base hitpoints, etc etc. It can be complex or simple, or complex but the user only sees simple ;)
[The reactor power is a mechanism to prevent a very big weapon (siege class?) on a lynx. However mass and horsepower could do the same thing, put too big a weapon on and the sucker just wont move period. horsepower might be a better idea in tactical sence. If horse power is used to compute speed of units going up hills then it would add a dimension of gameplay - units that have a lot of mass to the horsepower would go slow or nto be able to climb steep terrain while a unit with less massive add-ons could. A player would have to know his terrain and build his units accordingly, and vice versa]
Weapons:
There the player selects what weapons to mount. Again there is an assortment of weapons depending on what is researched. The weapons could have accuracy, mass, additional hp cost, additional ore cost, additional construction time, turret speed, reactor power used, etc etc. It may be considered to put the scout sensors, convect arms, repair arms, etc here instead of having them as pre defined units. Putting a scout sensor on a tiger would have a slower moving scout but provide amazing sensor range/other scoutelike bonuses due to the extra hardware avalable.
Augmentation:
These are optional bonuses that a player can add to the unit, for an ore cost and construction cost. These could range from armour bonuses (which would have ore and mass costs) to accuracy bonuses to (depending how RCC are implimented) a mobile RCC which would provide the benifits of an RCC for units in a given range. all of these allow potential for specialized units.
Construction:
I see this best implimented by letting a player save their designs to be called up by a simple drop down menu in the factory, or being able to design something and not save it as the player only will want to build that particular unit once. The design interface should also be something the player can have quick access to outside of the factory and shouldn't interfear with too much of the screen.
Upgrading:
This proposal also allows for interesting upgrade ideas. If a player wants to retool units they have they can just build the turret or augmentation, bring their units into the vfactory or a garage, and swap the weapon or augmentation. Turrest can be build faster and cheeper than whole new units and it would give gerages more use in game. The interface to do the upgrades should also be speedy.
-
Addition: If reverse engineering is implemented this would make things more easy for the modelers as well. Instead of having to make all the Plymouth units with thors (as an example) the game engine would just take the eden model and plop it on the Plymouth unit.
-
In SMAC/X the player was able to design their own units with an assortment of chasse(sp), reactors, weapons, armor, and two unit augmentation slots. Obviously in a turn based game the player has time to design these, in a RTS things need to be much more simple so a player can do things quickly.
I propose three modules - the chasse, weapon slot, and augmentation slot, although this obviously doesn't have to be set in stone. Same with my examples that follows, its just for the gist.
Perhaps a system like Warzone 2100 - an RTS - that only research and assembled the following:
- Chassis - i.e. Lynx, Panther, Tiger (can't remember WZ2100 equivalent
- Drivetrain - would be new to OP (in WZ2100, had Wheels, Half-Track, Tracked, Hover, etc)
- Weapons - i.e. Laser/Microwave, Railgun, RPG (in WZ2100, Machinegun, Rockets, Mortar, etc. WZ2100 Also had "weapons" like a Sensor Turret. Units could be "assigned" to a Sensor Tower/vehicle with a sensor turret, and anything that came within sensor range would be attacked by the vehicles attached to that tower/turret)
Edit: Cut down the quote. B)
-
that could work too, although it might make the plug n play modeling a bit more difficult. The augmentations were just an idea i put out there: it could just be the vehicle and weapon (in which case custom unit construction almost becomes pointless)
-
I really like the idea
I propose to streamline the idea even more that from the main menu there would be a separate "unit designer" where you can design the units you want and save the varients that you can use while you are in game
the varients could only be used in game once you reshurch all the components in it (so that say your only version of a lynx has a really high tech reactor, you would be pretty screwed at the beginning) of corse there would be pre made varients of units to select from
but yes, I beleave this could add a whole new depth of gameplay for op3 :D
-
I think you are proposing the same as this: http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2719 (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2719)
-
*cough*
The sad thing is I remember reading that. Oh I should do my homework better. I don't suppose a mod could merge the thread?
-
well than, this kinda proves that this is a pretty popular concept I would hate to see it left out
-
The game isn't being designed by committee ya know, its up to the devs what they want to add ;)
-
but the will of the cummunity should sway the dev team quite a bit, I mean they are making the game for us, and I doubt they want us to think it sucks
-
Heh, you should have seen what was said in the chatroom last night.
-
The problem with units that can be customized is some one will come up with a way to have the END ALL FINAL SOLUTION WEAPON and slap it on a lynx and drive and killing every one and then what will happen every one else will start doing the same damn thing.
-
The problem with units that can be customized is some one will come up with a way to have the END ALL FINAL SOLUTION WEAPON and slap it on a lynx and drive and killing every one and then what will happen every one else will start doing the same damn thing.
How I see this idea, IF applied to OP2:
Research Lynx Chassis
Research Wheeled Drive
Research Lasers
Can Now Build -> Wheeled Laser Lynx
Research Guard Post
Can Now Build -> Laser Guard Post
Research Panther Chassis
Can Now Build -> Wheeled Laser Panther
Research Tracked Drive
Can Now Build -> Tracked Laser Lynx
Tracked Laser Panther
Research Rail Gun
Can Now Build -> Wheeled RPG Lynx
Tracked RPG Lynx
Wheeled RPG Panther
Tracked RPG Panther
RPG Guard Post
etc...
You need to have a END ALL FINAL SOLUTION WEAPON for someone to put it on a Lynx (in OP2, EAFSW was Thor's Hammer - and you COULD put it on a Lynx).
If need be, have settings so you can't put superweapons (i.e. Supernova's) on a small chassis (i.e. Lynx), because the chassis is too small and can't support the weight of that weapon.
-
Right, the end all weapon was on the lynx already. Thats why i suggested either a simple reactor output or a engine horsepower thing and mass to act as a limiting factor/punishment for putting a big gun on a tiny chasse, which I wrote it must have been unclear, I'll edit it so it is.
Something like this would require, you know, something called play balance.
-
For once I agree with Freeza. People would simply make a EAFSW and thats all theyd need.
Suppose however that you made a quick-tuning setting. On the menu there is a list of all the weapons/vehicles and you can add stats to a certain attribute, which would then decrease others (IE you can push the Armor rating up, but then the vehicle's speed drops) and all vehicles built will have that rating (not the ones already in play)
So lets say you have a building just for this ("tuning facility" or somesuch) You go to this building and select the laser. You have settings for: Power Source, Heat Sinks, Focusing Lens. You increase the Power Source, and the Heat Sinks go down. The end result being an increase in damage, but a decrease in ROF. You then build a Laser Lynx, and these effects are in place on this lynx.
These changes would be subtle however, not enough to make a really weak Thors Hammer equal to a really uber Laser. It would be about 30-50 damage difference to go from all the way down, to all the way up.
-
Thats another option that could work, there are some mechanics question - for example the weapon settings would ultimatly have to change the damage per second, anywyas...
Let me ask you this, if you play Eden in OP2 do you still build laser lynx when you get tiger thors? From what i've read generally not. If the same vehicle and weapon mechanics from OP2 are used in OP3 then the point is very valid, user custom units would be usless as people will just use the latest vehicles and weapons (although it could still be done backend with the engine combining the parts together).
What would make custom building more useful is the addition of more advanced tactics.
Heres a scenario of what i have in mind, lots of embellishment and assumption on my part :)
Lets say the drive units have horsepower and weapons have turn speed and mass. Your opponent notices you keep attacking with bigger and heavier weapons as the game goes along. To counteract they research small, nimble, fast chassis and addons. These small craft obviously can't have heavy weapons on it, it would defeat their point.
As you bring your hopefully final assault force of triple barrel thor lions over one of the two flat routs to the opponents base (they have a hard time climbing the otherwise mountainous terrain), your opponent comes in from the mountain above - his units more able to handle the mountains. With the circle unit order, his units circle around faster than your turrets can. With the opponent managing to pick off your tanks one by one and you having a hard time taking out his. Your opponent attacked too soon however; you are not too far far from your base and you manage to retreat into the safety of yo fortifications before your losses became too severe.
To counteract your opponents specialization you bring some of your lions into the garage. Not wanting to spend the time to research lighter turrets, or spend precious ore constructing entire new units, you swap out the massive thors with advanced lasers you kept from earlier in the game. Lucky you also managed to reverse engineer a turret speed augmentation from one of the few units you managed to destroy. Thors are known to damage wreckage to the point were reverse engineering is almost impossible.
With your new mixed attack force you set out again. Your opponent is smarter this time around and engages you when you are further from your base but did not expect your faster turrets. You managed to take out more of his units to the point where he can no longer inflict enough damage to destroy your units and you proceed to erraticate his base as he didin't develop heavy enough weaponry for his guard posts when he went off to specilize in light fast units and weapons.
There can be other cases, you can go and developed some advanced ECM, so your oponent could counter with ECCM on all hyour units or develop a powerful senor to be equipted on a couple of tigers for the same effect.
THIS is what I was talking about when I mentioned interesting choices and the limited resources of time. All our ideas and suggestions are great, but they don't exist in a vacume. In a good game everything is linked together and affects each other. I would very much enjoy reading more details on what the developers have in mind for the game as I think it would help all of us give better suggestions.
-
OK i am not going to be nice any more TUNNING is for racing and Space game with lots of stupid space ships. War machines have there purpose to blow the f*** out of things and live that requires Armor weapons and movement you wouldnt worry to much about the weapon because if people can customize those they will just find a patten that produces a super mega END ALL WEAPON (THOR ARE NOT THE END ALL WEAPON DAMN IT) Speed People will just try to produce a unit that is so fast that they will just rush right up to the CC and blow it up. Yes like we do now but each side has the same speed upgrades thus there being a balance. With the tuning you wont have a balance. POWERSOURCE. Its called Research people You want a new power plant research it you dont just pull it in the garage and put on a Aftermarket Fusion enhancer. Armor there is research upgrades for that already. Want to put that stupid ass level 5 atamantium on a lynx so you can just plow through tigers. Dont seem very kosher to me. Remember there are more the one unit each having there own properties Tuning a lynx so it can go faster then what you researched just doesnt seem right. The Scientists Researched its stuff Lens and heat sink would have already been thought up because there not going to make some crap weapon and then slap it on a chassis remember those weapons keep them alive. Not like there are a bunch of red neck rejects for planet earth that hitch hicked along to where ever and set up a shot gun shop and mounted revolvers on a bike with duct tape. GAH RANT RANT RANT.
-
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't TC300 say this isn't going to be just a wargame?
I could go through each of your points one by one, but I doubt you would listen.
-
It should be a game of survival not a game of lets sit around manage a colony till we are blue in the face War is big part of the game with out it It just would be a RTS.
-
how is any of this related to colony management? I really don't mean to be insulting, but have you actually read what i wrote in this thread? Every last bit of it is about war and bring more ways to blow stuff up. Not a darn bit in here is about colony management. The only ONLY things colony related are guard posts, garages, and research.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, I really truly am, but all I am seeing is you writing contradictory statements.
Without war it would just be an rts? I don't know about you but every rts I have played usually has been just about war. In every rts I have played the buildings and research were nothing more than means to the ends, which is to build more units. Removing war doesn't make it just an rts, it just makes it simcity in space - and if the colony part is like op2, it would be a very boring one at that.
From what i have seen you are in favor of the whoever-has-more-units-win game. Do you actually call that a war game? War game enthusiasts would probably laugh at that. If its a more units win game, the ultimately it comes down to how well you collect resources (in this case ore) and how well you optimize the ore collection process. Do you disagree with me that the player who collects more ore faster can build more units faster? If its just a matter of who has more wins, then its not a war game, its about how well you can collect your resources game. I don't know about other people, but I think that would be more colony management than anything else.
A survival game? If we are talking about real survival with bleak resources then developing a war machine would end up taking too many resources and the colony would die. What you would have is just another colony management game. OP2 is NOT a survival game. Even at the hard difficulties I still seem to manage to collect enough ore to do what I want. A survival game is about resource MANAGEMENT and OP2 really isn't about that. I can get ore just fine. You want a survival game then you need more than a backstory saying the air is toxic. A real survival game would have making your next unit is a serious decision that could be disastrous.
And finally, do you know what play balancing is?
-
want to say that i need to READ (put that in fancy italics and stick it) every thing or maybe you didnt realize i was refering to what you said TH300 said
Who ever has the most units my ass. I dont believe in that but because so many people like like that no matter what maxing out there unit limit you have to do the same thing or be over come by the swarm effect. I know what A small squad of units can do i have killed people with them. Plus there are people that use the Flares and Novas usually 1 at a time. doesnt seems like Massive amounts of units. But thats all its going to come down to is the massive unit numbers because a large battle is some thing that cant be avoided on some maps and some players because you have to punch through there defences and still have enough units to kill any thing in sight.
I do read things in here and over there. And I am a god damn human i can get things wrong. But From what i read here is every one want to "pimp there lynx out" so it will be faster or have more armor with some building Thus Adding more and more Management Dont you see it. Want to keep adding more buildings and research for all this stuff and you end up doing nothing but research. And Yes it takes time to do that and every ones would have the same basic upgrade. But when it comes down to it do you really thing the scientists that have been trained all exactly the same and have all the same knowledge would have come up with the weapons and vecs that would be to top specs. Alot of this add on crap to make the units faster to fire faster or target faster or have more armor it just takes away from the game because at first it would just cause a major imbalance even in a eden vs eden. And Then people would just find the pattern that makes a UBER unit and then every thing else become unused. All improvements for the vecs and building is done in the research not some building you would have to drag all the vecs to and then add what ever you wanted to them. Making a 2 step tango a 7 step line dance.
Yes it is survival your enemy has units and ore isnt that scarce as you can see in op2 . (Making the ore realistic would have been a very bad idea) Your in a new place and there is one objective to kill off your enemy Given that the game style is LOS Land Rush and so on. War is survival if you have the resources you build if you dont you cant that is how it is you have to build more domes to make the food and do what management is there to keep the colony running and getting the rare and new vecs and there weapons all located in the Vec Fac Struct Fac and the Labs.
game balancing couldnt care what that is. I dont care what that is your just pulling that out to smack me down and make me look noobish. Making the game some what fair and still RTS not some lets sit around and research a bunch of stuff to make a laser lynx the uber unit or move it to some garage like building because every one fears the thor.
I dont want to hear any s*** about the Thor Sure they cant make some damn good chaos but so can a EMP missile and a group of RPG and ESG lynx.
-
My god you are taking this way, way too personally. Its just a game, sheesh.
Let me make something clear. This game is not designed by committee. It is not designed by democratic votes. The people making this game could have just as easily said that they are going to do their own thing and listen to no one. What they are is looking for ideas, seeing what people put out. Even then it will be up to them(italics are used to emphasize a very specific point an author is trying to make. FYI) on what they want to add and how to implement. You or I could type up a full blown 200 page document and they are under no obligation to even take a glance at it.
When I asked you if you knew what game balance was, it was not to make you look n00bish, although I do see that they way it was worded it can be interpreted as passive-aggressive. I seriously wanted to know what you knew so i knew how to explain it to you. Heck you probably knwo what it is already just not the name for it.
Playbalancing is making sure everything plays as intended. It makes sure thing are not too fast, or too slow, or too weak, or too strong. In your rant almost every, single thing you said would not even be a problem if the game was balanced. Unbalanced games are not fun because the inbalances are exploited by the players. I have no idea what you ment by ubder fast units rushing the CC and blowing it up. A balanced game would not have that. In all actuallity a balanced game would have No 0 null zilch uber end all units. I gurentee you Sierra spent HOURS with just a basic microwave and a laser unit just shooting each other, making sure the stats, both the numbers we can see and both the numbers invisible to the player but still computed in the game, are balanced.
OK now to address the game points.
I hate micromanagement. hate hate hate. Maybe even more than you. Its why I'm never any good at the civilization series because I don't babysit all my cities maximizing the resources. I rather make more general decisions (should I build another city or a warrior, etc etc). This idea of custom built units could be done poorly and micromanaged to oblivion with 10 different slots and 500 kabillion combenations each. Hell that wouldn't be fun in a turn based game. SMAC had 6, I brought it down to three. There should be usable predesigns for the lasy or if a unit is just needed right then and now. The interface will have a lot to do with hwo successful it would be - off the the side and not blocking the screen when its open.
I don't want it to be a micromanage nightmare, and you are right I might be taking the specilization too far. Some of the things I thougth about already, such as having to upgrade units. Should be automatic, could repair units do it in the field, could there just be a batch command that a single click would tell all the units to go to a garage and switch to this component selected from a dropdown menu. Just because there are problems with specific points of an idea doesn't mean the entire thing is invalid (only exception might be alien species ;) ).
Part of it is I'm putting the ideas together in context with one another. How will this feature work with that feature. Something big, like how reasearch is handled and how units are managed in the game engine will have drastic effect on what ideas will work and what wont. Right now I saw from the previous thread that custom building units is a popular idea and that I wasn't the first to suggest it. Custom units is a very very general feature that could be implimented in a lot of different ways, depending on how other game mechanics work. I'm going off of my reasearch idea from the general thread, there there are indipendant branches (like 4-10, who knows) that bring different strengths and weaknesses to the player. In that my suggestion was that in a standard multiplayer match a player would reach the end of maybe two if they just focused on those two strands. However it would allow for epic single player games if someone wanted to play it all.
If someoen were to say "I'm thinking this and this idea assuming research is done like this" (and I am only using research as an example, it could be any game mechanic of your choice, same with the thor, its just an example, nothing more. no need to get so upset about it) then I will work in the context of the assumption. Some ideas are great with once set of premis, and not so good with another.
The reason for the pimping is that it makes the game a bit deeper and why I suggested only one augmentation slot. Someone could put on the extra speed, but they loose out on putting on extra armor, or turret speed, and so on. For every add on, for every tech specialty, there should be at least TWO ways to counteract it. If its just one then its a simple player 1 does this and player 2 does that - so if the player is reacting to another at least they still can choose the option that works best for their play style and the game cerumstance at the time.
And finally. Dude. none of this is personal. I'm not attacking you, or the team, or nayone else. You HAVE raised valid points here and other threads. Pointing out weaknesses in the ideas will only make them stronger or to be dropped. But you have to remeber that in turn people will respond and defend their idea.
I feel that OP2 was lacking on both size, colony and war and, from my experiance in following game development and discussing game dev, just adding more units and weapons and buildings and reasearch, in and of itself, wont make a game better, its just more of the same. I know this idea is new to the game and it would not be like by some just for that reason alone. Because its new there isn't too much of a basis to go off of. I'm trying to make things work for everyone of many playing styles. I think the best way to manage the problem is improve both and find a way where a war focused player and a colony focused player are playing their games and find a balanced way to balance both war and non-war victories in the same game.
I'm on your side.
-
Ok. Everyone take a deep breath, we're all friends here.
I agree with both Freeza's and Croxis points - Freeza doensn't want to add customisation for balance and complexity, but Croxis want's to add it for strategy and variety (sorry if I got this wrong guys).
Now - the way I see it, if this is done right - you CAN'T make a EAFSW by customisation - add more speed, lose armour - add weapon power, lose ROF, etc, etc. i.e - make a RPG that fires at twice the speed, but half the damage = same as normal RPG. Add different customisations to give your units a DIFFERENT edge in battle, not an edge BETTER than your opponent.
Some people like rush tactics (lynx), some like gathered fist tacts (thors), and some like balanced tactics (panthers).
Sure, make fast Supernovas, but try to get them through my rapid fire EMPs, until you come with your extended range RPGs.
Get the point? Sure, you can make something better than your opponents, but then they'll counteract you - because where you've made your unit strong in one area, it WILL be weak in another...
Complex? You don't HAVE to design your own units - you get the stock standard designs by default. If you want, have customisation as a ON/OFF OPTION. WZ2100 designs weren't complex: Choose a chassis, choose a transport, choose a weapon, choose a mod, etc. Click about 5 times, either leave the default name or give it your own, and hit save. If you want, give players the option of making designs OUT OF GAME, like suggested by TH300.
Now everyone go an play Warzone 2100 and tell me about this END ALL FINAL SOLUTION WEAPON - because I want to know about.
If I got something wrong in here - feel free to point it. Just don't bite my head off. (Remember, we're all friends here.)
Oh, and don't Tiger Thor rush me, thats NOOB :D :lol:
-
More or less. The pimping (for some reason that phrase is just funny this time of night) is to give an edge and also to support more use of unit combenations that Freeza pointed out. The powerful augmenations would actually be the weaponslot (such as very strong sensor systems), so the vehicle has to be defended. If yuo are depending on that super sensor and the other player kills it well the tables sure did turn there!
I really like the unit design out of game, but if its something as simple as three drop down menus that you select from and a build and save button....
Another problem is that as the number of branches in the tech tree goes up (assuming it does branch of course) the usefulness of designing a unit out of game goes down as that tech combination might not come up and then it might be better to reduce the branch numbers.
Also, just because an idea is tried in game doesn't mean it will be in the final product either. If something just doesn't work then the code can just be commented out and something else can be used in stead.
-
There is a patern to how things are now with all this customzation there will just be the pattern that emergs of the best you vec you can get. And if you keep the style of op2 research you cant go back and make the Defensive units into the Attack units. The thing about a weapon like the lynx is it can be used in few ways. EMP your defensive or Supression Laser are fast dont hurt much unless in groups (Swarm effect) same with Micros. RPG and Rails are pretty much attack and destructive defence. ACID falls under title of Flail It can hurt alot and even has the swarm effect but its the only self damge weapon there is. ESG a weapon that only kills Vecs. The ESG is just as good as the ACID and the THOR even tho it lacks the Monsterous destructive power a thor has. ESG is a weapon that requires more manuvers then slamming head on into other units Like most of the other weapons except the ACID and Sticky. THOR is a Club you just bash the hell out of the enemy with it. But the Thor its self can be Defensive as it does have a long range of fire and its quite nasty but it has very little area effect the the Sticky Acid and ESG have. Using more tactics rather then just bashing the vecs into each other is the solution not making these units go faster or these units fire faster or have more power behind the shot.
That is how I see it. I defeated a superior enemy once with a few 1 thor and a hand full of laser by moving the units the way I wanted them.
-
okay, you two, knock it off or bring it to the debate forum. You guys are arguing back and forth ove minor details
-
Play balance. Thats all I have to say about it.
Speasking of that where could I find the op2 tech tree?
nm, found it.
-
Man that was lot reading, my though of undstand what read Freeza-CII that he point about it have been solve. If implement it would balance out easly.
P.s. state my opion on overall arguinments
-
OK ive held off long enough and its time to chime in.
Freeza is sick of all the BS ideas flying around trying to turn OP2/3 into a game of chess. Dont discuss it, dont DENY it because even if you dont know what youre doing (likely) the inevitable conclusion to all the changes you want to make to OP2/3 will make it a game of CHESS that turns into a game of CHECKERS: every unit starts out so specialized that they are more or less useless until you see what types of units your enemy is building and can then build counters to them; at which point they would already be bearing down on your colony. then because of all the f***ingbulls***p*niss***f***tardassrapegoatsexf***s*** upgrades, any and every unit can be upgraded until they are ALL EXACTLY THE SAME, WEILDING THE SAME f***ING DOOMSDAY WEAPON JUST WITH DIFFERENT NAMES.
It would be different if the ideas didnt amount to:
Invent new weapon based on an episode of _________ and slap it on a lynx
-or-
Make a chassis larger than the largest chassis available
-or-
Turn OP2/3 into (insert other RTS franchise here) by adding ________ feature
-or-
Add so many upgrades and addons that in the end, the winner is determined by who can click "Research" the fastest
If all the research suggested was put in the game, it would take 12 hours to reach 100% researched topics. Thats insane. Trying to make it so that anyone can break a stalemate or bad situation by researching some doomsday weapons is utter nonsense. Making it so that no player could ever get the upper hand on another player makes the game annoying, pointless and stupid. The fun of op2 is that when you start the game, everybody knows what theyre shooting for: "Go straight for Tigers" or "go straight for Thors" or "Go for the most ore" or "Go for EMP missiles". These bad ideas make the research tree so confusing that nobody would be able to figure out the research path to the topic they want.
Did anybody ever consider that?!?!!? The research tree is small enough that you can remember what topics you need to research to get to Thors for example. If youve got three dozen topics, how the f*** could you remember what you need?! Not to mention the fact that anyone who managed to reach 100% researched topics would find that ALL TOPICS CANCEL OUT ALL OTHER TOPICS. All your research topics, counter topics, upgrades and addons would do just that. So then the player sees "Well what was the point in all that if in the end, every weapon and unit becomes nerf compared to everything else?"
Thats what REAL BALANCE IS!!!! If Eden and Plym both had weapons that had the same destructive capability as the Thor, they are NOT BALANCED because every weakness would be plugged with a counter topic/weapon/research/addon. You have to have variety. You have to give one side weapons the other side doesnt.
The more I read the changes people want, the more it becomes clear that the ppl who are coming up with these ideas are people who are losing to Eden Thors Hammers. Theyre sore losers who cant take the fact that Plymouth cant beat Eden with equal numbers of their most powerful tigers. Well guess what? If you play Plym, you can kick Eden's ass BUT IT TAKES THOUGHT AND EFFORT. A mixed army of tigers with emp's, rpgs and esg's along with EMP missiles will OMGWTFPWN eden. Just because you cant recycle the same formula from Eden to Plym doesnt mean Eden has an unfair advantage.
In short, yur noob. Learn to play that game. You cant win and you cant take it on the chin. I fully admit that I cant win playing as Eden OR Plym but if I lose I dont throw a fit and flood the forums with bad ideas, and thats EXACTLY what these are.
In case youve read this and are getting pissed off, read again from the beginning and take a look at some of the points I made. Aside from my irritation and admittedly foul language, my main points make it more than obvious that the ideas some people are fighting tooth and nail to have put into OP2/3 are idiotic and outright absurd.
-
Ok first of all, SOME Of these ideas are fine. I would like it if you come to one of the senior members before posting such a post.
I feel that some of you think Op3 is OP2 in 3D. It isn't. It WILL have new units, it WILL have new tech trees, there will be certain changed or improved aspects of gameplay. That is why we put this forum up. Not for flaming and ridiculeing ideas. You can suggest alternatives, but you shouldn't flat out flame the person for SUGGESTING something and TRYING to help out. We need ALL the help we can get, and posting things like the above will only hurt us. I must ask you to stop.
The New units will GO WITH the storyline, not to make a counter-attack against the thors hammer or something stupid. We will be posting a large outline soon.
Horus, calm yourself down please, and change your post so it isn't as offencive. I've had people come to me saying that they don't want to help in the ideas forum because of this.
I want to make this clear,
WITHOUT THE IDEAS, IT WOULDN"T BE AS GOOD OF A GAME!!!
You are free to say your peace about ideas, but you don't have a right to go flaming the individuals for posting ideas. They have feelings also.
In short, yur noob. Learn to play that game. You cant win and you cant take it on the chin. I fully admit that I cant win playing as Eden OR Plym but if I lose I dont throw a fit and flood the forums with bad ideas, and thats EXACTLY what these are.
]
We are not noobs. At all. We are a community working on a project, and regardless of what you think, we are not noobs. We help each other grow and learn. Now horus, If you need to stop holding back, why not send it to me in a PM? I'd be glad to discuss things with you. Posting it on a public forum is very noobish as i see it, trying to make a point through flaming.
You're thinking that ALL these ideas would be included. In fact, that's not true at all sadly. We have no intention on making the tech tree so complex it takes forever to play. Only to the point that it can complete the story.
The wild ideas, those won't be included. People post their thoughts and whatnot, and the community gives feedback on those ideas.
Your post is unnecessary because we have a system in place that will keep the ideas that will make it idiotic out. You seem to think of a lot of us as people who can't see the air in front of them. You're wrong about a lot of us.
Ideas that are taken from other games, we won't be using those. We don't like to copy ideas, and most of the community has been against that.
We don't want a starcraft/warcraft clone.
There will be a mix of OP1 type gameplay where you research, and Op2 battle gameplay, where you fight to survive. It is going to be more like OP2 than it will be like OP1 in the fact that research and fighting is linked.
We will find a balance for the tech trees, and have them to where you have more of a tree that goes with the storyline (as I have said above).
To Horus:
You do have good points, but I think you forgot that the community as a whole will decide whether or not to include an idea. Maybe through representation, because individually people would vote for their own ideas (no offence) because, when we come up with an idea, we think it's the best in the world, which isnt' necessarilly true.
We could have a group of people who play games (and can learn OP1/2, or have previous experience) and whatnot come from outside the community and pick the best ideas. Before that would happen though, OPU would pick the top 50-75% of the ideas and then let the people from outside decide.
Ideas that we need to make the story work will be included automatically, assuming they aren't insane or too extreme.
As Freeza has said, there will be fighting and whining, but the decision makers must decide for the best of ALL the users.
-
stormy, my rant wasnt directed at you or genesis. im directing it at the lameass ideas for modding op2 or for an un named sequel. im not singling out your crew, but if some people on it are responsible for some of the ideas then they can consider this a reality check. the genesis team is much better now than it was earlier this year as a whole, so im not picking on you guys.
i get the feeling you think im DIRECTLY PERSONALLY ATTACKING GENESIS and im not. im criticising some of the ideas and (now) the people who keep coming up with them. you dont need to keep defending the direction of genesis because that doesnt matter at this point. we are arguing over low level concepts. you are dealing with high level finilized work and the stuff freeza and i are ranting over havent gotten to that point yet. its alright to defend you and your team, but im not going after you.
-------------------------------
its telling that the only defense people can mount against my and freeza's criticisms are related to our wording and delivery. so far NOBODY has made a good argument for these ideas other than "we should be allowed to cuz yur not the bossa me /cry"
why not try coming up with a technical defense for these ideas? simply thinking it up isnt reason enough to use it. give us technical reasons for these ideas to be in the game. and i DONT mean "because eden is unbalanced and this will PWN eden nowz!!!1111 one"
-------------------------------
i am NOT singling out anybody or any group. im not going after omagaalpha. im going after the ideas themselves for what they are and the people who continue to push some of the worst ideas. imo, they have been asking for it by insisting upon their half baked ideas this far.
-
I didn't intend to make it appear to defend myself or the genesis team in that post, nor did i think that it was directed at us, I just wanted to get some things cleared up.
He does have some points, we need some real solid information about those ideas that people keep bringing up...
-
stormy, my rant wasnt directed at you or genesis. im directing it at the lameass ideas for modding op2 or for an un named sequel.
...
...
...
This is the Outpost 3: Genesis board. This isnt for modding OP2, or an unnamed sequel, this is for Outpost 3: Genesis. We're making ideas for, outpost 3 genesis. That's what these ideas have been for this entire time.
its telling that the only defense people can mount against my and freeza's criticisms are related to our wording and delivery. so far NOBODY has made a good argument for these ideas other than "we should be allowed to cuz yur not the bossa me /cry"
why not try coming up with a technical defense for these ideas? simply thinking it up isnt reason enough to use it. give us technical reasons for these ideas to be in the game. and i DONT mean "because eden is unbalanced and this will PWN eden nowz!!!1111 one"
I've seen no such argument in the boards at all. Could you show me where you're reading this in a PM plz? I appear to have missed it.
That's just my two cents on the matter. Not pointing fingers, just questioning a few points.
-
Tramis, it doesnt really matter what board this is. The ideas flying around are utter crap. Once AGAIN, it wouldnt be a problem with me or freeza if the people coming up with them werent so insistant. Some of the ideas themselves really arent so bad but the way they are described, presented and suggest implimentation just make me want to laugh and Ive had enough.
Writing out the ideas carefully or trying to make them sound more official only works if the concept is inherently feasible or good in anyway, but filling a comment with hyperbole simply to cover the fact that its utter nonsense is irritating and amateurish. And I think thas at the root of the issue here. There are alot of amateurs here who think simply having ideas entitles them to some sort of dev position and that isnt true anywhere. Lots of ideas are really good for development but not when dozens of them arent just bad, theyre REALLY REALLY bad and make no sense no matter how you look at them. A bad idea is something that wouldnt work the stuff we are seeing go way beyond just that.
Lets say theres a dev meeting at Ford. Theyre working on a new car. If most of the ideas are: "Lets put the front end of a dumptruck on it because people like power, but then we should make the back end a tricycle because people like maneuverability." You end up with something that looks like its out of Dr. Seuss, which is what alot of the ideas going around the forum are trying to do.
The people making the suggestions have no experience making games of any kind. They obviously play games and from the looks of it lots of old, obscure, second-rate games. If StarCraft is the best RTS reference you can come up with, you really shouldnt even be thinking about game dev.
How many people making suggestions have written a mod? Done modelling? Been on a dev team? Done Beta testing? How many games have been made or were in development with your contribution?
Since Im sure the only counter-argument I will see will be going after the above paragraph and not any of the other legitimate points Ive made, Ill tell you that I dont consider myself an expert of game author but I have made a great deal of mods/addons for various games and I do beta testing at UW on a regular basis. So instead of attacking me personally, why not try and explain some of the real issues.
-
ok, lets not think about all the little details and balanceing issues, those will be handled by the developers
lets get down to the point, custom units, yes or no?
-
Things like this cant be left down to a simple yes or no. You say yes i want to know why if i say no you need to know why comment and counter and then it turns right back around into this because a idea is some of the most volitile things. Any one that makes up the idea usually will defend it to the death because they think its the best uber idea ever even if they dont admit it. If you dont think about the outcome of the idea and its effect on the game till later then all this stuff will just happen later.
-
Like Stormy said, the dumb ideas simply won't be used, the good ones will be used, and it's not worth getting pissed over. If you don't attack an idea that simply won't be used anyways, they won't defend it, and nobody gets angry, nobody gets their feelings hurt. It's just a game!
When Betaray asked for a yes or no, that's assuming that the devs can come up with a feasible and balanced way to implement it. He even said so.
Again, just my two cents, not pointing any fingers.
-
Look back and read.... well, all my comments so far. Youll see that I clearly stated that Im not talking about what gets into the game. I know that theres a fairly decent system to keep the s*** ideas OUT of the game.
But again I will say that Im not referencing that stage. Im talking about the concept stage where everybody throws ideas out there. The ideas people are pushing are crap. I know most of them wont get into any game (mostly due to the fact that I doubt any game will actually be made) but putting bad idea after bad idea on the table isnt helping anything.
Once again, in case it wasnt clear enough:
I AM REASONABLY AWARE THAT THESE IDEAS WILL NOT BE IN A GAME. THE REASON FOR MY LARGE AND FREQUENT COMMENTS IN THIS ARGUMENT IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IM TIRED OF SEEING CRAPPY IDEAS. IM TIRED OF THEIR CREATORS FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO JUSTIFY THEM FOR WEAK REASONS. THEYRE CRAP AND THEY SHOULDNT EVEN BE CONSIDERED. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE HINT LONG AGO THAT YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN EDEN FIREBATS.
In case youre still wondering if Im worried about what makes it into an OP2 sequel, scroll back up and read it again.
Oh yeah and let me direct your attention here (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=3055).
-
I think this will all become a whole lot easier once the outline has been posted.
-
In SMAC/X the player was able to design their own units with an assortment of chasse(sp), reactors, weapons, armor, and two unit augmentation slots. Obviously in a turn based game the player has time to design these, in a RTS things need to be much more simple so a player can do things quickly.
I propose three modules - the chasse, weapon slot, and augmentation slot, although this obviously doesn't have to be set in stone. Same with my examples that follows, its just for the gist.
Perhaps a system like Warzone 2100 - an RTS - that only research and assembled the following:
- Chassis - i.e. Lynx, Panther, Tiger (can't remember WZ2100 equivalent
- Drivetrain - would be new to OP (in WZ2100, had Wheels, Half-Track, Tracked, Hover, etc)
- Weapons - i.e. Laser/Microwave, Railgun, RPG (in WZ2100, Machinegun, Rockets, Mortar, etc. WZ2100 Also had "weapons" like a Sensor Turret. Units could be "assigned" to a Sensor Tower/vehicle with a sensor turret, and anything that came within sensor range would be attacked by the vehicles attached to that tower/turret)
Edit: Cut down the quote. B)
My First post on this topic... doesn't sound complex, noob, insane, etc.
And whats the problem with DISCUSSING ideas? Does it really matter that we talk about customising units to you? I can't see the problem. Talk about putting Sandworms and Spice in it for all I care - they are people's own ideas for the game. If noone likes it, it doesn't get put it anyway.
All your flaming will do is disencourage people from posting their ideas, and so we may MISS OUT on a really good idea, because the person was too afraid to post.
So I guess that your one of the people who believe we shouldn't even be allowed to DISCUSS the old cheats for OP2, as it would encourage people to try using something that WILL NOT WORK, and only in single player IF they download the older version they CAN'T USE in multiplayer....
Freedom of Speech - I don't see the problem.
As I said earlier - REMEMBER, we're all friends here.
-
Vecs already attack when some thing is in range in op2 i dont see why that would be left out in op3. If IT is going to resemble op2. I am sorry i just dont see a tracked Lynx or a Half track lynx. All these combos to me seem pointless. When it only comes down to 4 things armor speed damage and the player. I think it would just be better to have the weapons and vecs be built op2 style and if you want a upgrade your research it not all this Tricking out your units before hand because all it will lead to is people find the best combo and then never change pretty much like the ESG and Thors hammer.
-
Exactly freeza. I play alot of Earth 2160 where you can customize every unit at at least 8 unique points. All that custom s*** does is force me to go into the custom unit creator at the beginning of the game and immediately slap the best stuff on the largest chassis and just spit them out. The game has 3 types of weapons which all have the same range, strength and properties. This makes them pointless. It makes the whole thing pointless. Ya its kool at first but then all you can think is "man i wish there was just a button and built this" instead of going in and having to make it yourself by hand. so in the end, the op2 style unit building system really is the best. ive written countless volumes in this forum as well as other gaming forums on this subject. the fact is, people dont know how to engineer freedom and focus in the same product. either you can have all the customization you want but it comes out being pointless or you are stuck in a rigid system that you cannot operate out of. thats just how it is and no game system that exists now allows us to do what would really need to be done to make the concept work.
and once again, in the end, it comes back to my main argument. after all the extra s*** people are stressing over it always comes back to pointlessness. You would be adding years to the development time along with endless arguments, tweaking and patching just to produce something that people would bypass.
think about it, if yur playing a ladder tourney are you really gonna care if you can design custom bumpers for yur lynx? no. you want chess pieces.
-
why don't we take something our of the mechwarior series? in that series you can customized your mech as much as you want, but there is never an "uber stick the best stuff on and rule everything" configuration, online all the people dont use the same mechs with the same load out, no its a matter of persional preference, which is what customisation is all about, if they did put it in game and within months everyone was using the same chassis/weapon whatever, than the system was built wrong, and is not balanced, it would be a flaw in design, not in the concept itself
-
oh my betaray in i have played mech warrior 2 and 3 and with its open point system you can put any thing on as long as you have space. Playing Mechwarrior 2 online people came up with classes and conformity. And alo of people shared the same configuration because it truely was superior based on how things were damaged. And in Mechwarrior 2 there are 4 weapons that are the uber weapons PPC AC5-20 (Auto Cannon Big damn projectile gun.) Not to mention that there are missiles that lock on. Mechwarrior 4 is slightly different with Hard point in which only certain weapons can fit some where. Since op2 really has one weapon style per turret I dont see how the mechwarrior weapon system would work. Mechs are built for mass weapons not the singular weapons. And i do know they had tanks in the mech games but they followed the same weapons plan as having a main weapon and missiles.
-
Considering the number of games that have been developed you might be hard pressed to come up with a concept that has never been done before. Are all RTS rip-off of Total Annihilation? You may as well just flat out take the argument to absolute absurdity and say 95% of all computer games are rip-offs of Spacewar.
There is a concept, and there is implementation. Star Craft, Rise of Nations, Civilization, Sim City 2000 all had research. Oh noez OP3 can't have research at all its copying another game!n00b diezorz!!!!!!111!!!!ONE!!!!! Please. It is one thing to try and prevent another star-craft clone and its another to shut eyes and plug ears to anything anyone else has done.
Like I mentioned (but seems to have been conveniently ignored) there is a concept and there is an implementation of said concept. Starcraft, Rise of Nations, Civilization, and Simcity 2000 all had research but in each case it was implemented very differently.
Unit construction is a very basic concept which allows the unit to make their own units. HOW the player can do that will depend on other game devices and mechanics, which will in turn depend on other mechanics. I simply made argument with assumed premises which I very clearly stated. Obviously if the mechanics are different than the implementation I suggested would not work. Just because I didn't barge in boasting about my qualifications does not mean I have no clue what I am talking about.
Like I said (again, conveniently ignored), just because I said "here is an idea with said assumptions" does not grant the right for people to throw temper tantrums and name calling. Referencing other games for ideas or critiques is NOT a bad thing but can be quite useful for examples and seeing where things work well and when they did not. Its what people who actually design games do.